Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Yao PDF

    Uploaded by

    Ghail Rivas Gha IL
    7 views163 pages

    Original Title

    yao.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    7 views163 pages

    Yao PDF

    Uploaded by

    Ghail Rivas Gha IL

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 163
    A STUDY OF THE EFFECT OF LENGTH TO DIAMETER RATIO ON THE RESULTS OF PRESSUREMETER TESTS By Mitsuhiro Yao A Tnesis SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER oF SCIENCE Av THE UNIVERSITY or OXFORD, Wolfson College Hilary Term, 1996 Abstract A STUDY OF THE EFFECT OF LENGTH TO DIAMETER RATIO ON THE RESULTS OF PRESSUREMETER TESTS A thesis submitted for the degece of Master of Science M. Yao Wolfson College. Oxford Hilary ‘Term, 1996; The pressuremeter is one of the most commonly used devices in in-situ testing, because the interpretation method is relatively easy on the assumption hhat the pressuremeter is hufinitely long. However, the efferts of length-to-dianeter ratio on the lest results have been questioned: recently, and so this thesis explores the effects of length-to-diamoter ratio on the results of pressuremeter tests in soils First, the finite method is used 10 analyse numerically the effects of length-to- diameter ratio on self-boring pressuremeter test results, both in sand and in clay since it impossible 10 solve the cavity expansion problem theoretically on the assumption that the length of the press mncter is finite, In the analysis of clay. the effects of length-to-diameter ratio on the shear modulus and the shear strength are ermphasized. In the analysis of sand. the effects of the length-to-diameter 13 io on the friction angle are emphasized The finite element method is alo used to analyse the effects of length-to-diameter ratio ‘on full-displacement pressureeter tests in clay, ‘The effects of length-to-diameter ratio on the ty Indes. shea rig strength, shear modulus and initial horizontal stress are emphasized Finally, several calibration tests ate performed to investigate the effects of length-to-dianeter ratio on the lint pressure of a fulldisplicement pressuremeter in sand. ‘Three values of leu to-diamoter ratio (5.10 or 20) are used to c the effects, vestig: Acknowledgements I would like to express my indebtedness to several people who have been of contin ual assistance to me throughout ay stay here in Oxford. My thanks to Professor Guy T. Houlsby who supervised my work and who was absays available for con- sultation. | greatly admire his enthusiasm. dedication. strict attitude and work in the field of soil mechanics. The technical support given to me by Mr Bob Earl in the Soil Mechanies Laboratory was invaluable. I also wish to express my gratitude to the following members of the laboratory for their useful comments and suggestions during the course of my work: Dr. Har vey Burd and Dr. Brendan Ruck. Many thanks to Miss Nicola Andrews for her secretarial services I would also like to thank to my former tutors of Tokyo University for giving ine an opportunity to study here in Osford: Honorary Professor Kenji Ishiliara, Professor Ikuo Towhata and Dr, Mitsutoshi Yoshimine, My thanks » <9 go to my friends and seniors. Mr. Mitsutoshi Seto. and Mr Tetsuo Kobayashi. for their contin al encouragement during my work here. May [express my deepest. geatit Je to my dear parents for Ubeir unfailing Mar jors in my college. for their kind support and inspiration which they have given to me over th past ye thanks also to my brother, my friends and se encouragement. Finally. [ would like to express my appreciation to my dearest girl friend, Miss Yoshiko Katsuya in Kyoto University, for inspivin me many times and being a coustant source of love and encouragement Nomenclature 1. BB, D g G o Gon Gin Constants of integration Pressuremter diameter Young's modulus Matsuoka yield function Matsuoka plastic potential funetion Shear modulus Shear modulus of correction layer Corrected measured shear modulus Input shear modulus Measured shear modulus Measured shear modulus for an) infinitely long pressuremeter Height of mesh Rigidity index Input rigidity index Corrected measured rigidity index Measured rigidity index Measur | rigidity index for an infinitely long pressuremeter Stilthess indes atortos of top +05 102 + 0105 + 040) aos + 0305 + mo eioiey k k K Ky ha. PPh Ts Poo Ph R R RyRy Ry Ri Mh R Ry Rag Ro Parameter in Matsuoka model Factor Constants for hyperbolic function Pressuremeter length Piven} Ratio of the outer to inner radii of the correcting layer Pressure of cavity expansion Limit pressure Radial co-ordinate Radii (sce Figure 2 10 7) cavity pressure ratio Radius of mesh Pressuremter radius Pressuremeter radii (see Figure 2 to 7) Pressuremeter radins Relative density Nominal relative density Initial radius of pressuremeter Slope of a line found in Hughes ¢7 als simplified analysis Corrected measured slope Yu's exact solution based slope Measured slope Measured slope for an infinitely long pressuremeter Hughes cf al.'s simplified solution based slope Undrained shear strength Corrected measured shear strength Input shear strength Measured shear strength Measured shear strength for an infinity long pressuremeter Fn. 00 oH Fh Radinal displacement In-situ pore pressure Volumetric str n Volume of pressuremeter Vol mnetri¢ strain derived from the central hoop strain Volumetric strain derived [rom volumetric hoop strain 2 sine shear strain H13#1} Y Hote HFaNG Strain Central hoop strain Principal strain Strain when limit pressure is reached Maximum strain Strains Volumetric hoop strain tan? ©, tan Lee =20y9 Ho a0FaH Lame modulus exp deroltiee) undetermined multiplic Poisson's ratio Poisson's ratio of added mesh Horizontal Stress Effective horizontal stress Stresses Inesitw horizontal stress Initial horizontal stress Corrected initial horizontal stress ow Fria Thom Fim Corrected measured initial horizontal stress zontal stress Input initial hori Measured initial horizontal stress Measured initial horizontal stress for an infinitely long pressuremeter Principal stress oj + b5;5 Radial stress at the elastic-plastic boundary . Corrected measured friction angle ction angle Critical friction angle Yu's exact solution based friction angle Measured friction angle Measnred friction angle for an infinitely loug pressuremeter Friction angle for plane strain Input friction angle for plane strain Hughes et al.s simplified solution based friction angle Friction angle for triaxial compression Input friction angle for triasial compression Dilation angle Pressure of the cavity Limit pressure Corrected measured limit pressure Limit pressure calculated from input values Mea Meas Dilation angle for plane strain cal limit pressure red limit pressure for an infinitely long pressuremeter Input dilation angle for plane strain Iriasial dilation angle Input dilation angle for triaxial compression Pressure at 10% strain Contents Abstract Acknowledgements Nomenclature 1 Introduction LL Intreduetion 1.2 Review . 1.2. Introduction 1.3) Cavity expansion theory LBL Elastic stage 1.3.2 Plastic stage Ll Objectives of the study 2 Study of self-boring pressuremeter 21 Analysis in clay 21.1 Introduction 2 Procedure of interpretation 3 Il 21.3 Numerical results Analysis in saud 2241 Introduction Procedure of interpretation Numerical results 23° Recommended interpretation procedure viii 23.1 Self-boring pressurcmeter tests in clay 2 Self-horing pressuremeter in sand 24 Final remark Study of the full-displacement pressuremeter 3.1 Gutvoduction 3.2 Procedure of Interprevation 3.3 Numerical results 34 Effects of length-to-diameter ratio BALL Rigidity index 3.2. Shear strength 313 Shear modulus Sal Initial horizontal stress 31.5 Limit pressure 3.5 Biffects of rigidity index 3.1 Rigidity index 35.2. Shear strength 3.5.3 Shear modulus 3.5.1 Initial horizontal stress 3.5.5 Limit pressure 3.46 Application 3.7 Final remark Experimental apparatus and sample preparation LL Introduction 1.2. Experimental apparatus 1.2.1 ‘The cone-pressnremeter 1. the Oxford sand calibration chamber 1.2.3 The driving rig 1.244 ‘The hopper and sieve 1.3 ‘The pressurization system for the pressare-meter 11 Procedure of the test 1.5 Data acquisition and calibration 5 Experimental results bel 5.1 Introduction cee . Bel 5.2 Calibration results 5.3 Interpretation method 5.3.1 Data reduction and correction 5a Expe al results. Final remark. +9 6 Conclusion 6-1 6.1 Introduction eee 61 6.2. Self-horing pressuremeter . . 61 6.3 Fulkdisplacement pressuremeter : 62 6A Experimental Work oo. 63 6.5 Recommendations for future work . 63 References Ref-t List of Tables 6 Mesh size odoqdao a ou Results of measured values from finite clement analysis of self-horing, pressuremter with the small mesh (see text for definitions of variables}2-20 Results of measured values from finite eleuent analysis of sel -boring pressuremter with the medium mesh (sce test for delinitions of vari ables) Results of measured values from finite element analysis of self-boring pressuremter with the large mesh (see text for definitions of variables)? Results of corrected measured values divided by input values from finite clement analysis of self-boring pressuremeter with the small mesh (see text for definitions of variables) , 223 Results of corrected measured values divided by input values from finite len analysis of self-boring pressuremeter with the medium mesh (see text for definitions of variables). . pee Results of corrected ineasnred values di ed by input values from finite clement analysis of self-oring pressuremeter with the large mies (sce text for definitions of variables) BB Input values for analysis of self-boring pressuremeter in sand 2.36 Results of measured values of the slope from finite clement analysis of self-boring pressuremeter in sand for Opsia = 33" (see text for definitions of variables) eee 2B Results of measured values of the slope from finite element analysis, of selE-boring pressuremeter in sand for Opis = 38" [see text for definitions of variables) . oe 2M xi uw 16 ig Results of measured values of the slope from finite element analysis of sel-boring pressuremeter in sand for pai, = 48% (see text for definitions of variables). Results of measured values of the slope from finite element analysis of sell-boring pressuremeter in sand for Opin = AS’ (see text for definitions of variables) .. I = 33" (see text for \ comparison of corrected measured values from finite clement a ysis of self-boring pressuremeter int sand for Opn definitions of variables) \ comparison of corrected measured values from finite clement anal ysis of self-boring pressuremeter in sand for opsin = 38” (see text for definitions of variables) \ comparison of correeted measured values from finite clement aual- ysis of self boring pressuremeter in sand for epsin = 18 (see text for definitions of variables) \ comparison of corrected measured values from finite element anal- ysis of self-boring pressuremeter in sand for Opin defi {sec text for tions of variables) Results of measured values from finite clement analysis of full dis placement pressuremter A comparison between correeted meastred and input values front finite clement analysis of full displacement pressuremter Test results at Madingley by Powell and Shields Fest results at Madingley by Houlsby and Withers Test results a\ Bothkennar by Powell and Shields Corrected values of test results at Madingley’ Corrected values of test results at Bothkennar . Results of calibration Results of the experimental work Results of the experimental work by Schuaid( 1990) 22M 219 List of Figures 1 -Vhe segment of the soil in eylindrieal polar co-ordinates... 1-6 2 A ground condition before pressuremeter installation I-10 3 A ground condition just afier pressnremeter instalkation ito 1A ground condition when the cavity pressure has reached initial horizontal stress ae 5 1-10 3A ground condition in the plastic stage he 6 A-ground condition when the cavity pressure has reached the limit pressure. 7 A ground condition in the contraction (reverse-plastie) stage 8 Structure of the finite element mesh, 9 Small finite element mesh 10° Medium finite elem t mesh TL Large finite clement mesh Soe 2B 12 Procedure of pressuremeter interpretation [3A comparison between Uneeretical and numerical self-boring pres suremeter eurves (Le = 100) bee 2S LL A comparison between measured values of shear modulus (1. = 500. D/L = 36 ) oe 2 15 A comparison between measured values of shear strength (J, = 500. D/L =x) : 29 16 A comparison between corrected measured values of shear modulus 2-10 17 A comparison between corrected measured values of shear strength 2-10 IS Plastic area for f, = 50. L/D = A.(dark shaded area is the plastically deforming zone}... « 5 5 2 2B xii 20 Plastic area for , = 500. L/D = 4.(dark shaded area is the plast cally deforming zone) eee ee ee aT Plastic area for f. = 300, L/D = 10,(dark shaded area is the plasti- cally deforming zone) eee 12 Distribution of o, for J, = 500. L./D =4. (contours at intervals of »,)2-16 Distribution of a. f. = 300.£/D = 2. (contours at intervals of D5) . ee we es Distribution of 7 for J, = 500, L/D = 4, (contours at intervals of 0.1258, ) . 218 Distribution of 9 showing small numerical seatter only for f= 300, £/D = 2c. (contours at intervals of 0.00045, ) The effects of the length-to-diameter ratio on shear modulus The effects of the rigidity index on shear modulus The effects of length to dianicter ratio on shear modulus Effects of rigidity index on shear modulus The relationship between oj, and ©%. Procedure of imterpretation for self-boring pressuremeter in sand... 2-3 \ comparison between theoretical and numerical pressuremeter curves (/, = 100) . 210 Distribution of oy for psi = 33". 1, = 500. L/D = 10. (contours at intervals of O.8ai0) eo eT Distribution of t.5 for Opsin = 33%. 1, = 5 = 10. (contours at imervals of 0.2) A comparison between sj, and sce eee A comparison between ©, and 0,, A comparison between s,, ands, using central hoop strain A comparison between o, and o,. using central hoop strain \ comparison between s,, ands, using volumetric hoop strain \ comparison between 0. and 0,5 using volume ie hoop strain A comparison between soq aud se using central strain (L/D = 5.6.8. 10) eer ae 238 siv \ comparison between som ands.» using ce ral strain (L/D = 12, 16,20) 259 A comparison between 0.» and o, using central strain (L/D = 5.6.8. 10) . bec ee oe 260 A comparison between Om and o,. using centyal strain (L/D = 16,20) oes 261 The combined effects on slope due to finite length and clastic defor ination(centre) The combined effects on friction angle due to finite le deformation(centre) Mesh used in the fulldisplacement presstremeter analysis 32 Houlsby and Withers(1988) analysis... 33 Procedure of interpretation . 6 Distribution of 4, for J, = 200. L/D §. (contours at intervals of s,) 8 Distribution of re for J, = 200. L/D = 6. (contours at intervals of 0.2s,) 39 Plastic area for J, = 200. 1/1) = 6, (lark shaded area is the plasti cally deforming zone) Soe . 310 Typical pressuremeter curves from finite clement analysis of full displacement pressuremeter (J. = 200). . $11 The effects of the length-to-diameter ratio on the calculated rigidity: index oan we eee The effects of the lengtl-to-diameter ratio on the calculated shear strengtte ve cee tee wee BH The effects of the lengtl-to-diameter ratio on the calculated shear modulns fein BS The effects of the length-to-diameter ratio on the calculated initial horizontal stress. . es ST The effects of the length-to-diameter ratio on the calculated limit pressure 5 ee SIT The effects of the input rigidity index on the calculated rigidity indes3-18 The effects of the input rigidity index on the calewlated shear strength3-19 xv 60 61 2 3 1 The effects of the input rigidity index on the calculated shear modulos}-20 The elfeets of the input rigidity index on the calculated initial hor- izontal stress . oo B20 The effects of the input rigidity index on the calculated limit pres \ typical pressuremeter curve from a field test bl. sce Table 65 Results of the correction of Madingley results (best estimate as made by Powell and Shield: Results of the correction of Bothkennmar results (best estimate as made hy Powell and Shields) The mechanism for the pressuremeter pressurization... . La The Oxford calibyation chamber... 0.0 oes 15 The mechanism of the driving rig... 0... oe. . ‘7 The hopper : 1s The sieve : en 9 The mechanism for the pressuremeter pressurization . . « - ok Calibration result of displacement transducer Calibration result of pressuremeter transducer Phree-parameter hyperbola \ typical result of membrane calibration Experimental results for Ay = 0.5 Experimental results for Ay = 10.0. eee 5B Experimental results for hy = 2.0 0.0.0.6 - + 36 Density effects on the limit pressure 58 Density effects on the limit pressure(10%) 6 + + ce TN Length-to-diameter effects on the li li I Longth-to-diameter effects on the limit pressure( 10%) it pressure iath-to-diameter effects on the limit pressure(10% ) igth-to-diameter effects on the limit pressure Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Introduction The design of any structure or foundation requires a good understanding of the underlying ground condition, There are two basic methods to determine ground conditions. First, there is a Taboratory test. in which a small sample is taken from the ground to be investigated, Second. there is the in-situ test, where the ground conditions are investigated directly. In-situ testing has the distinct advantage of being fast and relatively inexpensive. ‘The pressuremeter (e.g. the selboring pressiremeter, the cone-pressuremeter). which is a well-known in-situ dev the foeus here, The pressurenieter was first introduced by Louis Menard forty years ago in France. Since then it has been used all over the world, partly because the interpretation of the result is relatively easy, working on the assumption that the pressuremeter is infinitely long. \s long as ground disturbance during installation is minimized. the self-boring pressurcmeter is a device which can measure the soil strength. stiffness and in-situ horizontal stress with tolerable accuracy. However, it is difficult to operate this test heeause it is slow and r« sires skilled operators. The cone-pressurcmetcr is a relatively new in-situ device which was developed to combine the profiling clficieney of the cone penetrometer and the merit of sel boring pressuremeter, The device consists of 60" penetrometer and pressuremeter This test is relatively fast and easy 10 do, However. since the installation causes LL Chapter F Introduction ground disturbance. the interpretation of the results is more difficult than for the self-boring device. ‘The pressuremeter tests. as described above, give a lot of in-situ information. including, the stiffness and strength of the soil. and in-situ horizontal stress. ‘The accuracy of these values continues to be discussed. However, the consensus view is introduced below In measuring the -situ stiffness of the soil. the value obtained from the umtoad- reload stage is thought to be more reliable than the initial or tangent value, since the unload-reload value has & good agreement with the laboratory: based value (Fahey and Randolph (1984). Mair and Wood (1987)). As for soil strength. it has been shown by experience that undrained strength values of clay derived from the self-boring pressuremeter are higher than the ex- pected values obtained from laboratory tests. Que of the possible reasons for this is that the laboratory based value is too low due to disturbance during samp! Other possible reasons ave finite th of the probe (Borsetto cf al. (1983). Yeung and Carter (1986). Houlsby and Carter (1993). Shuttle and Jefferies (1995) } and the method of data reduction applied (Wroth (1981)). It is also difficult to under- stand the strength of the sand wsing the pressuremeter, although a friction angle can be obtained from the pressuremeter test wsing Hughes «f al’s (1977) method, The friction angle obtained from this approach is found to he larger than the value obtained from empirical approach using the cone peuctrometer. The possible rea sons for this are finite length of the probe (Sclnaid. 1990) and the simplicity of Tlughes «f al. “s method (Yu. 1990). Finally. determination of the in-sita horizontal stress in the ground is one of the most difficult tasks because of the disturbance caused by pressuremeter instal- lation. Measuring the horizontal stress in the ground by means of the self-horing pressuremeter has been more successful in clay than in other soils, ‘The lift-off pressure which is found at the beginning of the test is often uscd. Jantiolkowski 1 al (1985) has highlighted the many difficulties involved in mea ing the initial horizontal stress in sands. Recently, the method of understanding soil properties of clay using cone-pressuremeter is devel Chapter Introduction 1.2 Review 1.2.1 Introduction In this section, [would like 0 focus on some existing studies of the effect of length to diameter ratio. Some attempts have so far been made to analyse the effect of length to diameter ratio on the results of the pressuremeter tests. ‘These works ean he divided into three categories: # Theoretical work # Numerical analysis by the Finite Element Method (F.E.M) @ Experimental work Each of the categories is reviewed below. In this thesis. the effects of length to diameter ratio are discussed sometimes in terms of the factor L/D. On other occasions. it is more convenient to use the inverse of this factor. ic, D/L. which has the advantage that it becomes zero for an infinitely long, pressuremeter Review of theoretical work Phere are many theoretical analyses of the infinite pressuremeter which shall he d later. However. tly few studies have been made of finite length pres- suremeters and all of these have restricted themselves to the clastic stage alone These studies originated in the paper by ‘renter (1916). ‘Tranter found that the displacement at the centre of a finite pressuremeter is less than that of an infinite pressuremeter. ‘The conclusions suggested that the shear modulus measured by a finite length pressnremeter is an overestimate. Moreover. a method for correcting this overestimation was implied in his work. ‘The validity ef the plane stain con dition has been studied by Livneh «fal. (1971) using an clastic model. Both of he authors showed that the plane strain approximation cant be justified for high values of a length-to-diameter ratio equal to or more than 7.0. Since the analyses are based highly on the Airy’s stress function method. it is not possibie to extend this theory to the case of a nou-homogencous or anisotropi« L3 Chapter I Introduction material and the theory is restricted just to the geometry of an infinite cavity. where the ground is infinitely long horizontally and vertically and the pressuremeter is also infinitely long. Dormieus (1992 stigated the error on the shear modulus due to the as- sumption of plane strain conditions. by using the method based on the principle of total potential energy and complementary potential energy. ‘This method ¢ he applied to more complex geometry and also to non-homogencos or anisotropic clastic materials. ‘The analyses have also shown that the overestimation is due to the finite length of the pressuremeter, in this paper. it is found that the overes- timation of the shear modulus. calculated under the boundary condition that the surface of the ‘ound is free, rapidly increases when the length-to-diameter ratio is less than 5. Review of numerical analyses by F-E.M. The analysis used to investigate the effects of the length-to-diameter ratio using finite clement analysis originated in the paper by Borsetto ul. (1983). Horsetto et al. presented some finite element analyses to investigate the effects of the Iength-to-diameter ratio on the results of the self-boring pressuremeter tests in clay . using an elastic plastic work-hardening model. ‘The pressuremeter was idealized as a evlindrical cavity of finite dimensions. ‘The conclusion was that the soil stiffness is uot overestimated as nmch as the soil strength. ‘The strength of soil is highly overestimated when the length-to-diameter ratio is less than 10 which agrees with some of the in-situ results. ‘The same elects were found by Baguelin «fal. (1986), using the ‘Tyesea model and the Cam Clay mod Young and Carter (1990) presented a new method to correct the overestimation of the strength of the soil dne to the finite length of the pressuremeter and shallow testing depth, ‘The method is based on finite element analysis and the correction is @ function of the ratio of the shear modulus to the initial horizontal stress. ‘This new correction gives improved estimates of the undrained shear str ngtli. but the valu is higher than other tests (ie. the vane test). ‘The clastic modulus was found to be determined accurately. not being affected by shallow depth or the length-to-diameter ratio. Chapter b Introduction Yu (1990) analysed the self-boring pressuremeter in sand and cone: pressuremeter in clay. It was found that the friction angle is overestimated due to the length-to diameter ratio when the method by Hughes et al. is taken into account, In cone pressuremeter analysis, in clay. it was found that the initial horizontal stress is overestimated if the method by Houlshy and Withers (L988) is applied. Houlsby and Carter (1993) did finite clement analyses for the self-boring pre suremeter ina ‘Tresca material. to investigate the effects of the length-to-diamet ratio and the depth. It was found that the depth effects are remarkably suvall int comparison with the effects of length-to-diameter ratio. both in soil stiffness and strength. and that the length-to-diameter ratio has more effect on the strength than the stiffness, ‘The shear modulus seems to be measured accurately using the central strain, Shuttle and Jefferies (1995) commented critically on the paper by Houlsby and Carter (1993). In the paper by Shuttle and Jefferies (1995). it was concluded that the pressure expansion curve for an infinitely long pressuremeter cannot be re produced by using a correction factor suggested by Houlshy: and Carter and that the correction factor should be varied with strain range. However. the criticism was based on a misunderstanding, because the aim of the analysis by Houlsby and Carter was not to reproduce the expansion curve for am infinitely long pressureme- ter, and the shear strength was uot measured from the limit pressure. Review of experimental work Laicr cf al, (1975 carried out calibration chamber tests to investigate the effect of finite pressuremeter length in dry sand. ‘The results suggested that there was no significant effect due to the length-to-diameter ratio. measured when the ratio is over 0. which support Tranter’s (1916) theoretical prediction. In contrast. it was found that the length-to-diameter ratio had a marked effect on measured limit pressure, However. this effect was found to be independent of sand density and over-cousolidatio 10 the finite atio. Limit pressure is overestimated « length of pressuremeter. ‘The maximum overestimation (60%) was found when the length-to-diameter ratio was about 12. Sclnaid (1990) presented some experimental results using a large chamber with Chapter Intreduction Figure 1: ‘The segment of the soil in cylindrical polar co-ordinates sand. ‘The limit pressure measured by different lengths of pressuremeier is. pre- seuted. Limit pressure is found to increase with decreasing length of the pres: suremeter 1.3. Cavity expansion theory In studying the stress distributions which are related to in-situ testing using pres- stremeters. it is recognized that cavity expansion theory is one of the most useful methods for theoretical analysis. The behaviour of the cylindrical cavity is de- ) 1. the force on the inner surface is scribed in terms of evlindrical polar co-ordinates (r.0. Considering the segment shown ii) Fi —r9,60 and that on the outer surface is (x + 6r)(a, + 8¢,)50. There are also forces on both sides of the segment, The resultant foree angential direction is equal Chapter ¢ Introduction to zero. Hence. the force in the radial direction on the sides of the element is: ai as 7 50 is sullicicntly small that this almost equal to —a¢Srd0, Considering equilib- rium and letting 6@ tend to zero, it follows that do » Or 2) or. since o, is a funetion of r only do, O,— a6 a a i Initially. at time (1 = 0). the cavity has @ radius A and an internal pressure ovo. Later. at a different time (1) the cavity has changed and the radius becomes HA typical material point of the material has a radial co-ordinate 7. which has moved 10 this position from its original position The boundary condition is o=Par=R a ray al = 8 The expansion of the cylindrical cavity occurs under conditions of axial syin- uietry and of plane strain for an infinitely long pressuremeter The constitutive equation for the continuum material may be written as a relationship between the rate of change of stress and of strain, ‘The strains are defined as below _ ai dit ap Sr a 6) w= R-R, Even though the displacement may be large. these equations may stl be ap- plied since the kinematic constraints do not permit a rotation of principal stress and strain directions. Chapter Introduction 1.3.1 Elastic stage The elasticity relations can be expressed as below bc 1 -v =v] [ do, BE] be] |-r 1 =| | boy (6) | & -v -v 1 | | 60, where £ and y are Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio respectively Because of elasticity and plane strain. it can be said that ba. = (6a, + 6a) w where J means the secant inerease. Substituting the condition of plane strain (equation 7) into the equations of clasticity relations. it is found that be — -v(l4v)] [ b0, ef@]ef! (14) ] | bo, a bce —vUte) 1a S00 ‘Then. it is obtained from this equation [e |-noial'SS)-P hel] ) where G and ) are the shear modulus and Lame modulus respectively as follows: (10) eee TWiT ¥) ~ T= 2) Since a, = ty + 8a, ay 00 = ony + dor it follows from the equations 9 that 0, = 19 = (44 2G) or a2 Ou 04 = Ow —% = (4420)" Chapter Introduction Substituting these equations into the equilibrium equation (3). the clastic dis- placement satisfies the second-order ordinary differential equition: (13) It is well known that the general solution for this kind of differential equation ca he written as following \ w= —4+Br (hy) from the From the fact that «30 (r+ oc). it is necessary that B= 0. An boundary condition (4) (15) In this ease, the secant increase of 2. that of a. and the displacement u are ie $0, = (P= oa) fag = 0. = —(P — noi ue Pao Re ar cman In addition to this. (17) Normally. cis used instead of a, as the pressuremeter expansion pressure, Therefore. the stress-strain relationship in this stage is Oy + 2 Us) where ¢ is the negative hoop strain at the surface of the pressuremeter 1.3.2 Plastic stage The initial stress state in the ground is a, = ¢ = ony « because it is assumed in the cavity expansion theory that the pressuremeter is installed deep in sand or clay without any disturbance. As the pressure of the the cavity increases. @, increases Lg Chapter 1 Introduction —2e Fignre 2: \ ground condition hefore pressuremeter installation Figure 3: ground condition just after pressuremeter installation and 99 decreases until they reach the failure condition (plastic stage). ‘The failure condition is different according to whether itis clay or sand. In practice, the Tresea yield condition is applied in the case of clay and the Mohr-Coulomb yield condition is applied in the ease of sand. Clay S-boring pressuremetor Th alysis for clastic- perfectly plastic analysis for a sell-boring pressuremeter in clay was presented by Gibson and Anderson (1961). ‘The ground conditions before installation are scen in Figure 2. where point S indicates « point on the contre-line of the pressuremeter. Figure 3 shows the ground condition just after installation. 2, is the radius of the pressuremeter, Figure 4 shows the condition wheu the cavity pressure has reached initial horizontal stress. oy and the radins of the pressuremeter is Ry. In these stages. the soil is assunted to he elastic. Figure ds A ground condition when the eavity pressure has reached initial hori- zontal stress 110 Chapter Introduction The yield condition for clay. termed ‘Tresea condition, is expressed when the principal stress compoucuts satisfy the inequalities 0) 7} Io) = hh = Isg(= 0) Gh) where h=atortos 102 + 7203 + 7401 1 a10205 § = tan? o,, Secondly, the defini jon of the friction angle for plane strain may expressed as: sino, = 2=2 75) ato, Thirdly. the plastic potential is defined by glo) = HIE — Bet=0) (76) where Sop top toy o)9} + 0303 + 030} ee Chapter 2 Study of self-boring pressuremeter Phe para eter is calculated on the grounds that the plastic potential and the yield fu ction must coincide at the current stress state, Fourthly. the intermediate plastic strain rate is zero for plane strain. ‘This is expressed by: oy doz Finally. the angle of dilation for plane strain is defined as below tis and the major plastic strain (¢;) and the minor plastic strain (¢s) are derived from the flow rule: Og 0;; (79) where A is an undetermined multiplier, Using the equation (76) aud (77) to eliminate cj. the following equation is obtained: (oF - ofo3\loj +93) =0 (80) When 07 is equal 10 zero. fact that C* = 1 oF sin Op, = 0, therefore equation (80) is in all practical eases equivalent to: (sl) Combining equations (76). (79) and (SL) produces: Gai atk yo atk Using equations (75) and (82) may derive the values (a1 fou. 97/09) (o1/o. K Jory) from (Ops. tps). except the case that vy. is equal to be zero. In addition to t the value. 2/os. is obtained from the equation (81). Since ¢ aud ¢ ean be obtained from the values. (91/43. 0743. 2/0) by using the equations (74) and (76). oy and vy are determined from ep. and Up. When u, is equal to zero. 02 may be shown to be: (83) Chapter 2 Study of self-hoving pressure mete e Figure 29; The relationship between On, and o Table 8: Input values for analysis of self-boring pressuremeter in sand and using this equation and the equations (71) 10 (78). the relationship between the angle of friction for plane strain and for triaxial strain ean be expressed by: tan? oy. = tan? Ops 4 and the angle of dilation for triaxial strain is zero. Phe resulting relationship between o,5 and oy and between op. end cy are presented re 29. which is derived using the Rowe's equation (73). In the analysis. fo ut plane strain frictional angle values (j,i = IS* 13". 38" or 38”) are chosen and other values (y,)y. tin) ate determined in the way deseribed above. All of the input values ean be seen in Table 8 2.2.2 Procedure of interpretation Following the theory by Hughes et al. (1977). the friction angle of sand (0) ¢ obtained from the slope of a straight line (s) from a plot of pressure against strain 236 Chapter 2 Study of selfeboring pressuremeter on double logarithmic axes wh n the critical friction angle(o.,) is known: sino= Syne (84) The apparent measured value of slope is obtained over the strain (¢). 1% —5%. Then. the measured value of friction(on) is obtained by substituting measured slope value (s,,) and critical friction angle (o., 33°] into equation St In engincering practice, the interpretation method by Hnghes et al. is com monly used. although it is possible to obtain the exact small strain solution (Y 1990). In Hughes et al.'s method. it is assumed in the theory that the elastic deformation in plastic zone is small and negligible in comparison with the plastic strain component. ‘The theoretical value of the slope for Hughes et al’s method is defined as six and that for Yu's method is defined as s-.. which shouid be very close to the slope value obtained from the finite element analysis for an infinitely long case. on and o,, are obtained from equation $4 with the values. sj, and ss, respectively. Lhere are two ways to do correction of the measured values: one of thei agiiust sy, and the other is against s,.. Ln this thesis. the later correction is chosen, because she corrected measured value should be a value whieh is thought to be found in in-siva condition. », aud oy are used later to examine the effects of clastic deformation 41 plastic region Assuming that the possible numerical errors due to the uou-linear algorithm in the easured slope for an infinitely long case will be of the same proportion in cach analysis with the same input valu « the measured slope (s),) is calibrated is divided by the ratio of the measured slope(sy) to the exact solution (sc). Defining this corrected value as so.. the correction procedure is expressed as following equations: ana (85) From this corrected measured slope (som): each corrected friction angle is cal culated, following equation $4 Indeed. it is possible to do this kind of correction by comparing measured friction angle in an infinitely long ease (0%) with input friction angle value (c:.). Chapter 2 Study of selfeboring pressurcmeter However. this calibration is slightly indirect. therefore, the calibration procedure described above is applied in this analysis ‘The whole interpretation procedure is shown in Fig 30. 2.2.3. Numerical results \ total of LIT finite clement analyses were completed. most of the all possible combina sof S values of L/D. 5 values of L, atid Opyin = 33°38" 1818” wer analysed, All results are summarized in Table 9 to 16, Table 9 to 12 show the measured and corrected measured values of the loading slope, Table 13 to 16 show the ratio of the corrected measured value to the exact solwtion value, As it is difficult to do the tests with higher value opin and f,. some of the tests (Opin = 38° te = 1000. L/D = 5.6.8.10. Opsin = AB" Ly 1000.L/D = 5.68.10. 12 and opain = 18% 1, = 1000, L/D 5.6.8. 10) were not continued until the cavity strain reached 5%. Therefore, all these results are eliminated in Table 9-16. igure 31 shows the typical set of results of numerical simulations of the sel boring pressuremeter in sand for J, = 500. A good agreement is found between the theoretical pressuremeter expansion curve using Yu's method and resulting pres suremeter expansion curve for an infinitely long case, with the maximum deviation of less than 1% in the derived slope value. Figure 32 shows the distribution of a, It is found that only the area along the pressuremeter is compressed. Figure 33 shows distribution of 7,9. ‘The relevant plots for the bottom left-hand corner of the large mesh (Figure 11) are shown in Figure 32 and 33 It is found that the area near the end of the pressuremeter is partly sheared. which cannot happen for an infinitely long ease. Chapter 2 Study of selfchoving pressuremeter npr . a ~ ~ mn he Hones tats | Figure 30: Procedure of interpretation for self-boring pressuremeter in sand 239 Chapter 2 Study of selfchoring pressure meter Figure 31: \ compa (1, = 100) 11 between theoretical and numerical pressuremeter curves 2 Study of self-boving pressaremete | sigs fag 0.2000 a. 16s 2.4000 3.2000 4.0000 4.8000 Expinkling sespbrane 6.6000 fle Figure 32: Distribution of o, for Opin = 33°, = 500.L/D = 10. (contours at ntervals of O.Saa0) XN 33", = 500../D = 10. re 33: Distribution of Fig intervals of 0.240) 16. s 2 Study of self-boring pressure meter 0.0000 0.2000 0.4008 0.6000 0.8000 1.0000 {contours at Chapter 2 Study of selfoboving pressuremeter pat value Tenral ‘salamat Oyen |e LD Tein] ez | sm [Dem se | om iso [wo] 3 0s | oe | O90 | Owe | OFA | OA To] [Posy | 0.206 fone | ose OFF Oe so | 0 _[ 80.29 | 0.206 | 0.305 | our [oi oat 0 | 50 [1000 | 0.206 | osu | oor | ony o-mIs 0 OEE SS OO 9.300010 [0-108 er 0.200 0.501 ] 0.05 | 30 bone [0.260 0.206 [Oa | 0.290 TE0_| Tor] 3 poser | or Dai [osm | 0-H 0} tou |e] 0.390 | 0.302 Dat [Ose [Osan usu} iu 7s 0.829 | 0.302 ost [osm | Oa wo] tou] 10 0.329 | 0.307 oss [oar | Oa S50} too] 1? 0.370-] 0.02 bat Losie | 0-21 330 | tou 7 te poe | oor 307 [0-51 | 0. 0 Joa} 200-890 [0.102 ‘308 | 0.208 | 0: T50_[ Jo] x ssa | 002 0.09 10.298 | 0. [Bo | O30 OTF] oa | 8: TO] aa a0) Ostet [0.360 | 0: 0 [ aor fs Die [O58 | OTT 0. 0 | 20 | 0 OW [OE] Osa ° 0 | 200} 2 pate [oie os To _| 200 DET OEE 0330) 35:0 _| 300 20 Dio [ oz Dag 0 [ 200 |x 310 | 0.306 Dt0 70] so] > 1.320 | 0.102 0.509) a0} soe 0.320 0.102 OIE 0 [ soo_[—&, D20-[ 0s oT) To_| sou [10 DLs OT oP or} Ta Daa0[ oar Oat 0_| 5001 0.520] 0.55 or [Sou [30 aL OT 0 to [ ons Lome [0-0 [oat 0.120) olan] 3 Posey [oa [TT Dag 07 Tam | op oe potas Poa O08 FLO Dwar] SOE 0-4 0.1007 2 SE I CO OEP OP Os A CC EPO a0 O_o | te ota | OT Os 580 [ ube | ~20 P3290 [0 49 O50 TOD Tuo [poe Poe [OF DEF ‘Table 9: Results of measured values of the slope from finite cleme boring pressuremeter in sand for 2p. 1 analy sof self 33° (see text for definitions of variables) Chapter 2 Study of self-boring pressuremeter Tapa alae saa EM Spam | Te [EDT see] tex 9m [sem [tn] sem O30 Paar ea oa [ome | oar [OTe 5 EE so [s0[ Oo [Oa [Oe Po.asr [oer [0.3 ON ET OT aE A A CTO CE CK eo) 90 | ie] 0991 [oso ose Loser] oma | DAK 0] a0 | | os Pos os [oon Dats TR0_[ 50 | ee] 0301 | 010 | 0.300 RON 8 | onto 0 | 0 SOE 380-10 [8 Loar [ 0.9 [0.365 30] 100 Ww | 0391 Posie | 0.59 R0| Woo | [oor [0349 | 355, Tome [ep oso Posie | o51 SO 10020 for [0.380 | ont RO |e os | Ue | One a0 | 200} 8 fosor | vant Po.1F Roam |e Pos 036 as0_| 200-| 8 [oer a.861 380-[ 200 [10 Loar] ont 3R0_| BO | 72 0ser | wer 3e0-[ 200 [16 s01 | oer 3e0_[ 200 [20] 0301 | 051 ROT] 20} [oe | Oar 380-[ sw 3 | oso | oto 0] 900 | 6 oso [ote 230-00 [8 | or [ote 3e0-| S00 [ 10 esr [oats Ra S| 2] 8-9 [ase | Os ss0-| 500] 18 oso Lasts [oss Te 0592 BR] 600 [ee [0.501 _| 0.76 | 03rs | 0.376 O76 38.07} 000 [12 [0.391 | 08 OAs | 0.4 0-5 38.0 [1000 [to [ 0391 | 0.385 042 | 0.128 Oat 380_| 1000 [20001 [oR oats 0.105 ORE 38.0 -[ 1000 |e Loam [0-365 0-38s [O38 585 Table 10: Results of measured values of the slope from finite elentent analysis of self-boring pressuremeter in sand for @ysin = 38° (see text for definitions of variables) 24d Chapter 2 Study of selfoboring pressuremeter Tapa wales Teatral Tametre Opie Te [ee [sm [em | tn | sem 10 Dare [aos | o.105 [ota | 0.190 750 Dare [os | 0.98 | UATT | OAT 750 O-FT LO. | 0-700] O.1UT | 0.AUT Ta Oaro-[0as6 | 0-86 | OER | OR io Data Poser | Oaist | oss | oor 0 Dat [ose | 0-190 | 0-300 150 Dash is6 | 0388 io Das SD | Oro 0 0.8 TSO OBE 0 DAs ‘aw [One 130 ‘alg ‘sia 0.20 io Dae ato [ota 70 DAL OA | OTT] OTS 150 0.398 [0.398 [0.107 | 0.100 Ta Oar [ose | ata] Ta Ta amt [sian [osm | ost a0 Oaist_[ Ose | Ose | O91 Ta Ose | OATO| OAT [0.17 130 Oars [oso] oA [Oia Ta Cast [Oise | Oe | Ok Fo ‘stat | OAR] OAT | OTE 1a oar [oat | ost | ota Ta Oat oats | O20 | 0.420 ta ‘OAH | OTD] 0.107 | 0.410 Ta Osa [OT | Oa [OSI 10 O56 [osm | osm [UI 0 Osos [One | OT [0.08 7a ass ORE OO OAT 15a ord [Oars | ass | ost Bo 0.55] 05S | Oto | W.1TO 130 Oats [ott | @t00-| tnt ia ae [490-0129 | 0.190 Far OAT WANE 00 | 0.108 Thar ‘oa os [or Tar on atts [Oe Table Li: Results of measured values of the slope from finite element analysis of sel-boring pressuremeter in sand for Op, = 43" (see text for definitions of variables) Chapter 2 Table 12: variables) Study of self-boring pressuremeter [am LED aa [ee So [5s Da Tar ofa ‘Ost Ta spose DAs oi [10096 Dae Osi [2 fosa, 0.0 asl Top ona ‘Oans aa ao [osm ‘Oar Ozh se [ oa Da Oat [esa v. Ta o[osa «. Oat 3 [oan 0. 1 osa6 0. [12] 0326, ° O50 Toor ° O50) 2] Ose D Oa = osa8 0. sh 3 [oe 0. O10) 180 _[ 200 [8 Pose D iso _[ 290 [ 1 one °. w0_| 300 [12 [one D 0 180 | 2001s ose ®. i580) 180_| 200 120 [one °. Oart 10} Jou 7s osae D 0.454 #80_[ 300] 3 Toner D500 sar oor iso} 500] o Lone Dax ‘ose [on wo | sou | [0526 00h W0_[ 500] WW | ona Osa 350, 180] sou [12 onan D520 O ¥e0_[ 300 [16 ose 0508 [oa T0_| 50020] oa D8 ‘att ws0_| sou [se Onan DATS 0.180 wo [room| 20s Darr D ws0 [1000 [te ona O38 [oser ws0 | 1000 [20 [ose Daa ona | Os #0 Lio [sD onan Dt OAT] OR Results of measured values of the slope from finite element analysis, of sel boring pressaremeter in sand for Opie = 18% (see test for definitions of Chapter 2 Study of self-boring pressuremeter vara Opn | [ED | = a0 Spr Tose [1000 a0 oa Tost our ao SL Toe Dae eu To TET Ta Tr 0 Tons hore io i 0 TOT] 100s a 20D 19081000 a0 =r Tan 0 mo [ Tao] 5 | 1.080. Tae ne 20-400 [ 61.089 110s Ls oat [ S18 ST CO Fa ao 11s ro [ too W180 To} 100] 20 8 a7 a0" 50 [200-[ 3 [eo CD 0 5 0 350 ae 350 eo 30 so a a. Ha He 350. Fat 50 So 00 0 000 Ta 350 i Te a. Lo TH Fable 13: A comparison of corrected measured values from finite clement analysis of self-bori variables) ng pressuremeter in sand for Opsin 38° (see text for definitions of Chapter 2 Table 1, of self boring pressuremeter in sand for epi, = 88% (see test for defini variables) Study of self-boving pressurcmeter inpar valuos central cepa [Ese FE 0 = mo wp Pte te Tos wR wre Ds Tor 0 sre pois Tose a8 To ise Das TaaT 380 Tse Ta Tar a0 Tote Doe Tats 70 FN HEPA EET 10 0 =e Dae 1.000 380) Sloot Tee 380) BED ftom TOT 380) Sap 1om Tor 380) Twa 09 1a RI) Pa ECT EC Tar RD a oor ToS a0) 2h ran Tae 30 =p hart Ta SD 5a 1.008. Ti 720 [ost 1085 TSE 750 3 Das has 0 To 10st 100s FRO | O01 aT | 1.08 m0 _[ 200.08 [1.065 EE ET ET S00] R08 70 _[so0_[ 3 [on Lo 0 o] 6 Loe 30 oo] 8 oe we0_| 500_[ 10 | hone | Loss, To} supa Don oo [ oe 500_| aor Tou [Taso Tow [eas [ort Tou ||. T.aTT tow [xD nuis Port \ comparison of corrected measured values from finite element analysis ions of [aap 050-11 ro [- 000 TOs0 [1.1 Ta [ [IE TO50-[ 1.105 Ta_[ s00_[ ie or 050 ons 3.0} 0020 Low [Lose [on 0 [-suo [| oer | as Chapter 2 Study of self-boring pressuremeter imate — aaa Tai] [enim [| te [27B. = S| | (aoa Thier Dose [7.t0F [1.085 EO ac TR hae 0S tops Tare [Tat [10ers Ta aa [0 TOT [Tare | TOR] 1 rags Tare [oI LOW 103T Tae} 0] 16 Toor [nos | -0a0 LaF oe Taos | hoor erp Te Ta = 0-00 69-1 a0 [w+ ra [Hse TT cs Tass Tr ToT s ft 1 rat) Trae Tost r to [-Ww0[ 12 Tus Lor 1 aa Tar on T aww [TT Too Ta TEL Taw LPT Too Pa} T000-T Ho_f-aw fs LT Tass [TE | TF] aww} Te Eo Tor TT fof w0O PSP LP Tar ao [200 | ie | osy [1.067 110077. | a0 Pa | TSE 1 Tag] aW0 PEP TT LF Tore a wo" | afte os 0 | To B07 3003 OS a0 | 300} Tosi 1a6t Ta oO Tos t 1 T T 1 Tol | eos oer Pte 9 Ta w00 | 207 Loz [ast Ty wi. 1000 [~~ Toa [1.000 TOM Table 15: A comparison of corrected measured values from finite element analysis of sel-boring pressuremeter in sand for Ossi = 13" (see test for definitions of variables) 219 Chapter 2 Fable IG: A comparison of corrected measured vah of self-boring variables) Study of self-horing pressurcimeter TORE Tass or Lows | 10m. Tom ion Lor | oar Loe 1a 000} 1000 Tis | 1001 80 [1006 Tost | TORE Tow | on Tow | 102 000 [-100Kr 110 ae Tar Tae Tor] Tost 7000 s00—[ a eo 300_[ 12m s00—[ 16 [100m 00_| aT [ 0m 500_[ x ot Too [12.0597 tooo [Te 1.059- 1.016. TOO [BO To Tbr To00 |< | 050 Pte pressuremeter in sand for Opin ‘s from finite element analysis 18° (see test for definitions of Chapter 2 Study of sclf-boring pressurcmeter The effect of clastic deformation in plastic region is first investigated. ‘This effect is independent from the length-to-diameter ratio. because the exact small strain solution by Yu is used in the correction. Figure 34 compares the slope values obtained from Hughes et al’s method ane from Yu's method. It is found from Figure 34 that the slope from Hughes et al’s simplified analysis is la ;cr than that from Yu's exact analysis. which indicates that the Hughes et al’s analysis tends to underestimate the derived loading slopes and friction angle, ‘The difference between the slopes become small when the stiffness index (J,) is larger. For instance. the maximunt value of the ratio, sy,/s,-. when fe is equal 10 1000 is less than 6 % (Ip = 1000. Opin = 48°) and the minimum value of that when J, is equal to 50 is over 11% (1, = 50.0, 3°). ‘The maxima value in the analyses is 27%. which is found when 1, AS (Figure $1). ‘This is reasonable because the elastic deformation in the plastic area may be sinall when the sti ness index value (J,) is high. \s for the friction igle. the same trend can be found (Figure 35). ‘The maxin} % (Uy = 1000. psi, = 18’) and the minimum value of that when {, is equal to 50 is over 8.7 % (Ly a value of the ratio. Om/oc. when I, is equal to 1000 is less than 5 psin = 33°). ‘The maximum value in the analyses is 2 which is found when J, =50 and op,iq = 48° (Figure 35). so found that the input friction angle (Op.iy) has influence on these values Ihisa In the ease of the slope value (Figure 31). when the stiffness indes is relatively large (1, =500 or 1000). the deviation of the slope due to the [rictio angle (Opin) is 16%. On the other hand. when the stiffness indes is relatively small (1, = 50 or 100). the deviation is more than 12%. Considering the fact that the maximum deviation due to the stiffness index when the friction angle (Opyia) is 33° is 10% and the maximum deviation is 21% when the input friction angle (Opin) is 18%. it can be said that the influence of the input friction angle (Opsin) is significant. In addition, this deviation gets larger when the friction angle (Opin) is larger In the case of the friction angle values (Figure 35), the maximum deviation when the friction angle (Opsin) is 33° is 8 % and the maximum deviation wh the input friction angle (oj,in) is 18" is 15%. The same phenomena as found in the slope values can be seen. but. the influence of the input fri 1 angle (pain) Chapter 2 Study of self-boring pressuremeter Figure 34: A comparison between sy, and si Chapter 2 Study of self-boving pressuremeter Figure 36: A comparison between sy, and s,» using central hoop strain secs 10 decrease in comparison with the slope value case. This is simply due to the mathematical method in Hughes et al.'s simplified analysis where the friction angle is calculated from the slope value, In the following sections, the corrected valves are examined, since the corrected values are thought 1 be those found under the realistic conditions, The effects of length-to-diameter ratio The effects of the length-to-diameter ratio on the loading slope and the frie~ tion angle cau be seen in Figure 36 10 39. Figure &6 shows comparisons between corrected measured and exact slope using central hoop strain. In Figure 36. it is found that the overestimation found in the corrected measured slope (sq) «le- pends highly on the length-to-diameter ratio and varies almost linearly with the Chapter 2 Study of self-boving pressurcimcter Figure 37: A comparison between 0, and o,, usiug central hoop strain length-to-diameter ratio. However. as found in high J, values. such as 1, = 1000 or 500, the overestimation seems to become more constant, ‘The overestimation be the corrected measured due 10 the length-to-diameter ratio docs uot effet am slope for /, = 50. since the deviation is less than 9%. Particularly. for f, = 50 and Is”. the deviation is 5.8% at most. On the other hand. when f, is equal “£, This means that if the stiffness index is 10 500. the deviation is more than 2! high. the effects of length-to-iamcter ratio are significant Figure 37 shows comparisons between corrceted measured and exact friction angle using central hoop strain. ‘The overestimation found in the friction angle is. in general. less than the overestimation found in the slope. This is simply beeause of the mathematical relationship between the slope value and the friction angle value, ‘The trend of the overestimation found in the friction angle itself is very similar to the trend of the overestimation found in the slope. Therefore. it can 251 Chapter 2 Study of self-boving pressurcmeter Figure 38: A comparison between s.. and s.. using volumetric hoop strain be said that the overestimation due to the length-to-diameter ratio becomes less when the input friction angle (Cyan) and the stiffness index are small and the overestimation is less than tht found in the slope. Figure 38 shows comparisons between corrected measured aud exaet slope using, volumetric hoop strain, ‘The derived value using volun rie hoop strain has more overestimation than that using central hoop strain, However. the difference is small and less than 3%. Therefore, it does uot matter significantly whether volumetric oop strain or central hoop strain is taken into accomat Figure 39 shows comparisons between corrected measured and exact friction angle using volumetric hoop strain, As mentioned before. the tendeney found in the overestimation of the friction angle is similar to the tendency found in the slope, ‘This results in the fact that the overestimation of the frietion angle found Chapter 2 Study of selfeboring pressuremeter Figure 39: A comparison between e.9, and 0, using volumetric hoop strain Chapter 2 Study of selfeboving pressurcmeler in the volumetric hoop strain is found 10 be more than that in the central hoop strain: On the whole. it can be derived that the overestimation of the slope due to the len o-diaineter is significant when the stiffness index is more than 50. since the overestimation become more than 10%. In contrast. when the stiffness index is equal to 50 and especially when the friction angle is high, the overestimation is less than 6% using the e tral hoop strain. ‘The overestimation docs not seem to be influcaced much by whether the central hoop strain or volumetric hoop strain is used. ‘The overestimation of the friction angle is less than that of the slope due 10 the mathematical procedure by Hughes cf al.. The same tendency as found in the slope can be seen in the friction angle. The overestimation is almost linear with the D/L ratio. except when psiq = 38°. 1, = 500 or 1000, E: ning the data 500” or 100°) values - iL is found that the overestimation slightly becomes approximiately constant, derived from small 6),in (=33" or 38°) values and large 1, ‘The effects of stiffness index The effects of the stiffness index (1,) is examined here. Figure 40 and AL shows ‘a comparison between the corrected measured slope value using the ecutral strain and the exact solution based slope value, It is obvious that the effect of the rigid ity index is large when the D/L ratio is small. As the f, value increases. the overestimation increases. When the length-to-diameter ratio is less than 10. the overestimation is almost linear with the stiffness index. ‘This means rat when using a short pressuremeter aud investigating rather stiff ground. the overestima tion may turn out to be big. On the other hand. if the ground is not stiff. the pressuremeter will give a good estimation, Figure 42 and 43 shows a comparison between the corrected measured friction angle using the ceutral strain and the exact solution based friction angle value The same tendency found in the slope value can be seen in the friction angle value. Phe overestimation in the Friction angle is less than that in the slope. As discussed before, the difference between the slope values using the central strain and the volumetric strain is small and these trends are same. Chapter 2 Study of self-boring pressuremcter igure 10: A comparison between s,, ands; using central strain (L/D = 8.10) Chapter 2 Stuy of self-hoving pressure meter and sj using central strain (L/D = Chapter 2 Study of selfsboring pressuremeter and og using central strain (L/D = 2-60 Chapter 2 Study of selfeboring pressure meter oarey fe = 2) Chapter 2 Study of selfehoving pressuremeler The effects of friction angle \x is shown in Figure 10 to 43. the effects of friction angle is found to have little influence on the devived values in compar on with the effects of the length-to- ameter ratio and the stiffness index. ‘The maximum eviation duc to the input friction angle value (O,.;,) is less than 3% both in central strain and volumetric when the sand material is the same. this implies that the density docs not have a strain, Considering the fact that the friction ang » depends highly on the density significant influence on the pressuremeter test results when the rigidity index and the length-to-diameter ratio is constant. ‘This is in agreement with Laier «f al, (1975) who concluded from large chamber test results that the effects on the limit pressuremeter. derived from pressure-espansion curve, are lai y independent of the soil density 2.3 Recommended interpretation procedure The self-horing pressuremeter which is widely used in practice has a length-to- diameter ratio. 6 (e.g. the Canbridge self-boring pressuremeter). ‘Therefore. the self boring pressuremeter analyses with the length-to-diameter equal to 6 are ex amined in detail here. Of course, the same argument may be used for self-boring pressuremeter tests with a different length-to-diameter ratio. 2.3.1 Self-boring pressuremeter tests in clay For self-boring pressuremeter tests in clay. the effects of the lengtli-to-diameter ratio on shear modulus is less than 0.8% when the central strain is taken into has hardly any effect account. In addition. it seems that the effects of the rigid on the shear modulus, On the other hand. when the volumetric strain is taken into account, the overestimation is more than 7%. Therefore. it is recommended that the central strain should be used to measure shear modulus. For undrained shear strength. when usiag the volumetric strain derived from, the volumetric hoop strain and the shear strength is measured over the strain 2% - the overestimation is more than H% and the effects of the rigidity indes is Chapter 2 Study of self-boving pressurcmeter discernible although it is small. It does not matter much which strain range is used when the average volumetric strain from the volumetric hoop strain is taken into account. On the other hand, using the volumetric strain derived from the central hoop strain and the same strain range. the overestimation is more than about 10% aud the overestimation is varied with the rigidity index more than the value from the volumetric strain derived from the central strain, The deviation is more than 10%. But. the deviation tends to decrease when using the strain rauge. 6% to 10% and 6% to 15%. and the deviation is less than 10% Considering that the strain range. 2% 10 5% is widely used in practice. the volumetric strain from the volumetric hoop strain is recommended to measure the shear strength of clay. because the effects of the rigidity index is relatively small. When using the volumetric strain from the volumetric strain, the overestimation docs not vary much due to the rigidity index and the overestimation is beuveen H14 and 20% when the strain range, 2% 10.5%, is used. This means that the finite length effects may be aceon ed for by multiplying the derived strength by a factor between 0.83 and O.S8, 2.3.2 Self-boring pressuremeter in sand The results of the self-boring pressuremeter tests in sand show that the elfects of the stiffness index aud the length-to-diameter ratio on the slope, which is found when the pressure and the strain is plotted on double logarithisie seale and used to calculate the friction angle. is significant and the slope value is overestimated. However. they also showed that the effects of the input friction angle is not sig- nificant in comparison with the effects described above. This means that it does not matter much if the sand density is high or low. In addition, the trend whieh js found in the volumetric hoop strain case is the same as the trend found in the central hoop strain case. although the overestimation found in the central strain is a bit smaller, Pherefore. in the following discussion. the effects of the length-to-diameter ratio (L/D = 6) and the stiffness index are examined, assuming (hat the central hoop strain is taken into account, ‘This is because the overestimation is relatively small In addition. the most attention is paid to slope value here. since the friction angle 263 Chapter 2 Study of self-boring pressurcimeter value can be derived from the slope value. ‘This means that the correetion of the overestimation in the friction angle is slightly indirect. by comparison with the slope value based correction The overestimation of the slope value increase between 41% and 28%. which leads to the overestimation of the friction angle between 3% and 21%, mainly due to the stiffness index as the stiffness index inerease. The overestimation is almost linear with the logarithmic stiffness index value and the deviation due to the input friction angle value is less than 2% im any ease. It is seew that the finite length effects may be accounted for by multiplying the derived slope by a factor of (78 10 0.96. Phe other problem is that in Hughes ¢f al.’s method the clastic deformation in the plastic area is ignored. with the result that the Hughes ¢f al. method tends to underestiniate the derived slope and also the friction angle. This underestimation depends on the stiffness index and the input friction angle. This means that the effect of the finite length of the pressuremeter depends both on the friction angle and the stiffness index. when taking the effects of ignoring elastic deformation in plastic area into account If the effects of ignoring clastic deformation in plastic area can be estimated simply by nuultiplying by a factor. s../sin. it is found that the slope value is over- estimated when the stiffness index is large and the slope value is underestimated when the stiffness index value is small. This method is. to be strict. not sullicient Lo include the effects of the clastic deformation in plastic area. because the clastic deformation depends on the length-to-diameter ratio and. as a result. the effects of the clastic deformation in the plastic area cannot always be in the same proportion. However, it is tre that the value son/sin OF Conform can account for the ef- fects of the elastic deformation in the plastic area to some extent. ‘Therefore, the n [Sig OF pm {Ot following paragraph gives a discussion using the value Figure 1 shows the combined effects om the slope due to finite length and clastic deformation. Il is noticed that the slope value is underestimated with the small [, value and high friction value when the elastic deformation in the plastic area is taken into account. It is interesting that when the J, value is small the olfect of the friction angle is slightly bigger. This means that the effects of density Chapter 2 Study of sclfshoring pressurcmetir Figure 44: The combined effects on slope due to finite length and clastic deforma- tion(centre) is larger when the stiffness indes is small Figure 45 shows the combined effect on the friction angle due to finite lengthy and clastic deformation. ‘The same trend as seen in Figure 44 ean be found. 2.4 Final remark The self-boring pressuremeter is used 10 obtain some fundamental soil parameters In interpreting the data, it is assemed that the length of the pressuremeter is infinite. This chapter investigated the elfects of the length-to-diameter ratio using the finite element method. For self-boring pressuremeter tests in clay. it was found that the derived value of the soil stiffness and strength by use of the conventional Gibson and Anderson method is higher than the actual input value. This means that the conventional Gibson and Anderson method tends to overestimate tle soil stiffness and strength The overestimation in the shear modulus is negligible when the central hoop strain is taken into account. However. in the volumetric hoop strain case. the shear modulus is overestimated much, In additior. the overestimation does not seein 10 he influenced by the rigidity indes. On the other hand. the overestimation of the shear strength is significant. ‘The 265 Chapter 2 Study of selfohoring pressuremeter ee Le Figure 45: The combined effects ou friction angle due to finite length and clastic deformation(centre) overestimation depends on the length-to-diameter ratio. the rigidity index, and the strain range where the shear strength is measured. For the self-hor pressuremeter tests in sand, serious overestimation of the strength parameter. friction angle. was found. The overestimation using the central volumetricstrain is lower than that using the volumetric strain. However, the trend of the overestimation in the volumetric hoop strain is similar to that in the central hoop strain. In addition. the effects of the clastic deformation in plastic area is studied comparing Yu's exact sinall strain solution and Hughes et als simplified solutio It is found that Hughes et al.'s method tends to underestimate the friction angle. Chapter 3 Study of the full-displacement pressuremeter 3.1 Introduction This chapter explores the analyses of the full-displacement pressuremeter in clay by using the finite clement program. OXNFEM 145. Virst of all, the pressuremeter expansion is modelled as a two-dimensional ax isymnuctric problem in a large strain clastic perfectly-plastic material. Il of the teats are carried out with ajo = 0.0. since the horizontal stress appears simply as an additive term on all stresses.

    You might also like